Is Dany actually the ANTAGONIST?

[Arkantos]

This is actually the lack of nuance I was talking about.

Dany's crucificions are worse from a certain perspective and Stannis are worse from another. Arguing that the perspective from which Dany looks worse is the only valid one seems specious to me.

From what viewpoint are Stannis' burnings worse? Explain that to me, there's no way.

Yea, if need be, I'd taken being burnt alive twice over 1 crucifixion. But it's honestly kind of absurd to start grading the levels of torture that are going on in order to say one character is more moral in this situation over another.

So you agree that Dany's crucifixions are worse in every way?

[Starkley]

Come on, this guy literally traveled around the world for her hand. He's like the hero in every 80s movie. :P

Also, none of you guys congratulated me on 4000 posts. :crying:I

Congrats on 4K. I'm at four posts. If I take it one step at a time, I'll get there. Congrats

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I quote someone else "Stannis deserves every praise he get" - you might have presented a slightly more nuanced argument, but my comment was not specifically directed at ayou, but at the general tone of the Stannis defenders in this thread here.

Then, we took different things. The way I saw most of the the people who were saying they were different were arguing the same thing as me: Stannis knew he was killing the guilty, Dany killed random people from the social class.

People who were arguing the same were focused on the methods.

I admit, two different arguments. But since we are comparing specific incidents, I feel guilt matters.

That's one aspect.

1 You could also say that Stannis executed some starving footsoldiers who did no harm anybody and merely wanted to survive, (2 doing something probably half his host was doing at the time and something 3 Stannis himself considered at the time of the siege) and 4 merely had the bad luck of being caught.

Well 5 Dany executed people who kept others as slave. 6 The might not have been directly invovled in the child crucification, but they were certainly guilty of that much. They were also prisoners of war and killing prisoners of war seems a common practice. Other parties have done that without stating any particular reason. Of course there's hypocrisy in that as well, as Dany herself has de facto enjoyed the service of slaves while staying with Illyria and she once teamed up Jorah who was also once complicit in the slave trade etc., but I've already allowed that both Stannis and Dany are a bit hypocritical.

1. I never said it was not an understandable crime. But it was a crime.

2. Entirely possible. However, that proves my point even more. Stannis only executed people he knew was guilty. Dany didn't make that distinction.

Really, I don't understand this argument. Because someone else got away with a crime, people who get caught should not be punished? That makes the whole idea of law a mute point.

3. Considered doing. Never did. Again, this logic would render law mute as everyone gets dark thoughts from time to time.

4. Yeah, getting caught gets you punished for committing crimes. Personally, I think getting caught as a requirement for punishment (especially capital punishment) is a good thing.

5. Didn't you just a sentence before this say Stannis shouldn't punish someone because he considered doing the same thing over 15 years ago? Dany owned slaves. Thus, by the logic you presented, she should not punish slave owners.

6. Then shouldn't she put all slavers to death?

Funny thing is, slavery only works if you put one class of people as subhuman and deserving of what they get.

And they would not exist in our world either, if not for the truly courageous people who dared question the moral conventions of their time and fought for progress. We wouldn't have a civil rights movement without them, we still would have slavery, women would not be allowed to vote, etc.

Doing the right thing is fairly easy when you are in line with the moral conventions of your time.

Defying the moral conventions of your time takes quite a bit more courage and personal integrity.

I agree with this statement. However, Dany is not that person. Jon Snow, maybe. But not Dany.

A person who legalizes slavery when they absolute authority is not anti-slavery.

My argument is that the use of torture of any kind in the punishment of crimes removes any moral highground of the person who commands the torture. Flaying, burning alive, scaphiasming, crucifying anyone regardless of what they've done is wrong. This is my point, and Stannis does not get to stand on higher ground for the fact that his men were verifiably guilty of the crime.

I firmly believe that torture negates whatever rightness or justification someone has. I get that all of the issues with the 163, and understand how the punishment of Stannis men is an example of justice in that they committed known crimes. But Stannis really lowers himself here in his method of execution in service to a despicable cause.

I get what you're saying. I disagree. Murdering a group of people without regards to whether they are guilty is inheritly worse than murdering people you know are guilty. That they die either are murdered cruelly is different story. As I said, even if Dany simply gave them a drug overdose to let them peacefully die in their sleep, I would consider her actions worse because she almost certainly killed innocents (not only those not involved in the child murders, but probably at least a few who disagreed with it).

The mental acrobatics are the ones necessary to insist that accordance with existing laws is the only criterion necessary for moral judgment.

Actually, the greatest mental acrobatics I have seen this Thread is your post above where you say Stannis is somehow wrong for killing men because he considered doing the same crime, but Dany is justified for killing a whole bunch more people because they committed the same crime she did not even a year before.

Don't get hung up on the term "human rights". My point is that we wouldn't have all those neat things without people like Dany who dared fight for the rights of people even at a time when does rights were not considered part of the moral framework of any given socieity.

Dany is not fighting for human rights. She became anti-slavery when it benefited her. Then, she later legalized slavery. She might not like it. She might be anti-slavery. But she's not fighting to end slavery. Otherwise she would have never legalized it.

I wonder if Dany would've freed the Unsullied, and by consequence all the slaves, if she were able to afford them, looked like she came up with it as a way of keeping her dragons and the army.

I wonder what Dany would have done if the Unsullied decided to just become farmers and settle down.

But I think that's what implicit in arguments that absolve Stannis of his live burnings, especially since it's used as a way to argue that Dany's crucifixions are categorically worse.

Well, first I look at the law (no cannabalism) and decide if it's immoral. It's not. It's understandable why those made did commit canabalism, but I don't see the law itself as immoral.

Then, is the punishment immoral? It is. It most defintely is.

However, just because it is immoral does not mean that everything immoral is its equal.

I am not arguing the Stannis burning people alive is somehow anything other than a horrible crime against humanity.

However, that does not mean it is the same as Dany executing random people for a crime without regards to whether or not they were actually guilty.

Arguing something is more horrible than something else doesn't make the lesser evil any less evil.

I get it now Bumps!, I really do.

I originally thought you were trying to insist that there wasn't a difference regardless of reasoning. Now I see that you simply feel the use of inhumane capital punishment negates whatever reasoning there was, and that's cool. :)

I still don't. Maybe, I am not getting it through my thick skull what butters is saying. Or I may just have a different view point.

Yea, if need be, I'd taken being burnt alive twice over 1 crucifixion. But it's honestly kind of absurd to start grading the levels of torture that are going on in order to say one character is more moral in this situation over another.

:agree: Again, it's not the method, but the target that makes the difference for me.

Like you said, it's silly to compare the two. And I don't.

But the targets of the executions is a sticking point I simply cannot get over. I don't think setting criminals on fire is anyway acceptable. But killing people without regard of their innocence in the crime you are killing them for is worse.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

But I think that's what implicit in arguments that absolve Stannis of his live burnings, especially since it's used as a way to argue that Dany's crucifixions are categorically worse.

Personally, as I cannot speak for everyone, I am not absolving Stannis of his live burnings. Still, I understand why he did it. I feel Dany is worst because even though she used an extreme form of capital punishment--the same as Stannis--she may have killed innocent people for the sake of revenge. Still, I understand why she did it.

They were both wrong in their forms of capital punishment, but I cannot group someone that killed people they knew were guilty of a crime with someone that may have killed innocent people in the same category. That does not sit right with me.

For example:

If I set two people on fire, one guilty...one innocent. True, it is wrong that I burned people in the first place and I can't be right either way, but I feel it is a 'bigger wrong' to burn the innocent person.

I totally understand you view, but it is not my own.

[butterbumps!]

Stannis burns because of the Red God and Melisandre. Dany crucifies because she is impulsive.

Stannis gets proof. Dany doesn't.

Stannis is way more moral, IMO in regards to this...and everything else.

Which goes away in terms of "rightness" once he starts using torture. The fact is, Dany and Stannis are both part of the committee for torture, along with Ramsay, Cersei, Gregor, the Shavepate and the Tickler. This speaks volumes about the objective goodness here; by virtue of the fact that they engage in torture, they both compromise any and all highground that went into their decisions to torture anyone.

It doesn't matter in terms of objective rightness whether people are tortured because someone is pissed off, vengeful, enjoys it like a sick fuck or believes he's doing justice. The reasoning behind why they use torture makes these characters variously more sympathetic, but it does not make the fact that they used torture right or justified.

[ab aeterno]

But a lot of others actually did what they did and wery just lucky enough not to get caught. And I'm pretty sure they will continue, because they are fucking starving right now! They don't have much of a choice.

They do have a choice, even if it isn't a great one, and they're not out of food yet. This is hardly a fair criticism, as Stannis can only punish those he catches, and he will punish those he catches.

I had strong impression that Stannis partly ordered the burnings to satisfy the Rhollor followers in his army who were getting antsy. The cannibalism thing seemd quite a bit like a pretexte.

This, again, is partially true. Stannis burns them to appease the Queen's Men but he would have executed them anyway.

[ab aeterno]

Congrats on 4K. I'm at four posts. If I take it one step at a time, I'll get there. Congrats

Thank you. That's all anyone can do, one post at a time.

If you are a Stannis fan you might find that your posts stack up rather more quickly...

[butterbumps!]

Ok, time out for a second.

There is no reason in the world to torture someone. Torture done for any reason, is inherently unjustifiable. Burning 100 Ramsays alive who are guilty of being Ramsays is not right.

However, the rationale behind why some people use torture varies, and this makes them more sympathetic than others in their choices to torture people. That Stannis does this out of a misguided justice makes him more sympathetic in my eyes than the motivations behind Dany's crucifixions. But it doesn't absolve the problematic morality of his use of torture over anyone else who has used torture.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Actually, the greatest mental acrobatics I have seen this Thread is your post above where you say Stannis is somehow wrong for killing men because he considered doing the same crime, but Dany is justified for killing a whole bunch more people because they committed the same crime she did not even a year before.

Good thing that I was not saying that then. I was anticpating this objection and already admiting that it is a valid one to make. Both Stannis and Dany are hypocrites, which is something I've been saying from the start.

[NotSoSilentSister]

They do have a choice, even if it isn't a great one, and they're not out of food yet. This is hardly a fair criticism, as Stannis can only punish those he catches, and he will punish those he catches.

Well, he makes a serious effort to catch all of them, he'll be out of an army soon. Since he still has an army in the Gift chapter, I assume that the effort has not been all that serious.

[ab aeterno]

Well, he makes a serious effort to catch all of them, he'll be out of an army soon. Since he still has an army in the Gift chapter, I assume that the effort has not been all that serious.

That's because your original assumption, that all his men are committing cannibalism, is unfounded and baseless.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

This is actually the lack of nuance I was talking about.

Dany's crucificions are worse from a certain perspective and Stannis are worse from another. Arguing that the perspective from which Dany looks worse is the only valid one seems specious to me.

They are both wrong...let's get that out of the way first.

In relation to the cannibal burnings and the slaver crucifixions, in what perspective can Stannis look worst?

But a lot of others actually did what they did and wery just lucky enough not to get caught. And I'm pretty sure they will continue, because they are fucking starving right now! They don't have much of a choice.

Still, they were caught and an example was made, so it won't continue as openly or as often as it would have if they were not punished. They may be starving, but that doesn't excuse cannibalism in a military situation.

I had strong impression that Stannis partly ordered the burnings to satisfy the Rhollor followers in his army who were getting antsy. The cannibalism thing seemd quite a bit like a pretexte.

Even if this is true, he didn't go out and burn some random men to satisfy them. He still burned men guilty of a crime.

[J. Stargaryen]

You're going to get flamed by Danystans, but I think your basis is sound. If we strip away the "teenage girl" exterior and acknowledge that you're going to come off as better in your own POV and look at actions, I don't think it's out of bounds to question whether Dany is as benevolent as she thinks she is. The worst people can be the ones who do evil while thinking they're doing good.

This is the stuff that the best villains are made of.

[NotSoSilentSister]

That's because your original assumption, that all his men are committing cannibalism, is unfounded and baseless.

Not all of them, but quite plausible enough of them that he couldn't afford to burn them all.

[ab aeterno]

Not all of them, but quite plausible enough of them that he couldn't afford to burn them all.

What is your evidence for this?

[The Idiots Lantern]

Stannis burns because of the Red God and Melisandre. Dany crucifies because she is impulsive.

Stannis gets proof. Dany doesn't.

Stannis is way more moral, IMO in regards to this...and everything else.

Seriously? "Impulsive?"

I'm not gonna defend the crucifixion but I'm not gonna pretend Dany did it on a whim, that she woke up one day and said "today's kind of slow, I guess I'll crucify some people, why not?" She did it to scare the First Families of Meereen, give them reason to pause before acting against her. Yes it was a stab in the dark and yes it was indefensible (why let THEM choose, they'll feed up the people who may have liked you!), but I can understand why she thought it was her best option at the time. In her position Stannis would probably have done something similar. A king does not last long if he has any tolerance for rebels and their conspiracies.

So in a way both Stannis and Dany killed people to solidify their own power. Stannis to appease the red god and his followers and buff up Melisandre's magical mojo, and Dany to potentially cripple the conspiracy against her at best and maybe erode their high-level support.

And so the innocent suffer.

[Starkley]

GRRM has spoken on the issue of villainy in the past, and his words were rather enlightening. See here: http://www.infinityp...ion/intgrrm.htm

I think it's pretty clear that this is not a series that's going to end with Humanity versus The Evil Others---that's exactly the sort of paradigm GRRM claims he wants to "stand on its head". I think it's equally clear that "the battle between good and evil" being "fought chiefly in the individual human heart" is a pretty excellent distillation of exactly what GRRM has been doing with Dany's arc all along. All along she's been struggling between the idea of "the Mother" and planting trees, versus "the Dragon" and fire/blood---with the idea of embracing the traditional qualities of a hero vs embracing the traditional qualities of a villain.

And GRRM has created a truly fascinating dynamic here, in which we have a character with the potential to be viewed as a great hero in one place (Essos) but as a great villain in another place (Westeros). It all comes down to Dany's choices: does she stay in Essos, make a workable plan geared toward attacking, and one day ending, the institution of slavery, in order to create a better society for everyone? Or does she go to Westeros, where seeking the Iron Throne makes her no better than any of the other greedy power-seekers who've caused so much ruin thus far?

That, I think, is one of the most brilliant things GRRM has done with this character. He's set up a situation whereby Dany has the potential to go down as either one of (ASOIAF) history's greatest heroes or one of its worst monsters, and which path she finds herself on come ADOS ultimately depends on her personal choices. Does she choose to stay in Essos, embrace the role of Mother of the Slaves, and try to use her various capabilities (military and political) to devote her life to ending the institution of slavery---to try to make the world a better place for an entire society? Or does she head to Westeros, where she will be mother to absolutely no one, will have no place or purpose other than seeking her own self-aggrandizement, and will only be capable of bringing even more death and destruction (but certainly no healing) to an already-ravaged country? (And to those who for some reason believe this series is going to end with Dany riding on dragonback to single-handedly defeat the Evil Others---yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath there. This is not that sort of series. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Jon ends up negotiating a ceasefire with the damn Others in TWOW and we don't actually ever have a new Humanity vs The Others, Battle For The Dawn Part 2.)

One of the major points of the whole "Stallion That Mounts The World" episode seemed to be to illustrate the fact that one group's Great Hero is, practically by definition, another group's Great Villain---and who serves as the hero and who serves as the villain will depend entirely on where you happen to be standing at the time. To Dany, Khal Drogo was the person who saved her from Viserys and from a life of powerlessness, and Rhaego was destined to be a great hero to his people. To the Lamb Men, Khal Drogo was a murdering, raping, pillaging villain, and Rhaego was destined to be a great destroyer of their people. And both Dany and the Lamb Men were absolutely correct. Their respective attitudes simply depended on where they were standing at the time.

Dany is a character currently situated in a place where a large group of people---the Red Priesthood, the slaves---want her to be their heroine. In that same place, she's clearly viewed as a villain by a large segment of the population---the slavers. The issue there is that the readership is obviously going to empathize with the former over the latter, so to a good portion of the readership, Dany's been falling on the "hero" side and not the "villain" side. Move her to a place where the readership already empathizes with a large number of characters---Westeros---and that paradigm shifts. Suddenly it's not Dany vs the Evil Faceless Slavers, it's Dany vs. Stannis/Arianne/Jon/Davos/Brienne/Sansa/etc., and Dany's "inherent righteousness" evaporates.

And the problem with the idea that Dany's "obviously" going to be viewed as a hero in the end is that GRRM has explicitly written things into her character arc that should give any careful reader pause. She's ordered torture. She's savagely sacked cities (more even than Tywin Lannister ever did). She's ordered crucifixions---and I sincerely doubt it was coincidental in a literary sense that Dany ordered exactly 100 more crucifixions than did one of our primary Westerosi villains, Ramsay (he ordered 63, she ordered 163). We've seen her cause untold amounts of destruction, not just intentionally, but also unintentionally, thoughtlessly. She's begun believing some truly disturbing things about herself (that she can't get sick, that she's a dragon in human skin) that should give any careful reader pause, not just due to those claims' objective outlandishness, but also due to those claims' source (Viserys---parroting the words of someone like Viserys is never a good sign). She fetishizes the dragons, creatures capable of inflicting untold amounts of suffering. She's shown herself to be a rather terrible judge of character and tends not to think before she acts.

I think it's very easy for some readers to overlook these things because of how readers saw Dany start out the series: as a terrified, powerless 13-year-old. But that's not what she is anymore, and that's certainly not how she's going to be ending this series (she's gone too far and done too much). As Thoros of Myr says to Brienne:

If I thought there was any chance whatsoever that Dany was going to be ending slavery in Essos come ADOS, I wouldn't feel confident thinking she's going to end up in the "villain" category in the eyes of both the readership and of (at least, the majority of) her fellow characters (though probably not her own eyes). But I'd say the chances of that happening are slim to none. She's been fighting the "battle" in her heart since AGOT, and the part that's been winning . . . well, let's just say "good" isn't winning out here. Her final chapter in ADWD encapsulates this: she thinks approvingly of Daario (who represents cruelty, destruction, and immaturity), she can no longer remember the name of the child Drogon ate, she hallucinates people telling her to go to Westeros and embrace fire and blood at the expense of planting trees. Going to Westeros cannot make her a hero because Dany doesn't have the capabilities to save the people of Westeros (only to destroy them). The thing that the readership has been clamoring for for years---"Get Dany out of Essos!"---basically puts the final nail in the coffin of "Daenerys the Hero", because she simply doesn't have the tools, knowledge, or skills to be a hero to people in Westeros (as she was to people in Essos).

Damn. That was good. I rolled one up and read this - Your posts always have so much perspective. Ive enjoyed all the characters in the series, just as much as the posters on this site. You guys give me a lot to look forward to.

[NotSoSilentSister]

What is your evidence for this?

well at least Asha seems to have the impression that it was not exactly an isolated incident. She mentions quite a couple of guilty looks, also from the higher-ranked members of Stannis host... Isn't it quite the happy coincidence that Stannis managed to catch the lowborn perpetrators and not the higher-ranked ones?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Ok, time out for a second.

There is no reason in the world to torture someone. Torture done for any reason, is inherently unjustifiable. Burning 100 Ramsays alive who are guilty of being Ramsays is not right.

However, the rationale behind why some people use torture varies, and this makes them more sympathetic than others in their choices to torture people. That Stannis does this out of a misguided justice makes him more sympathetic in my eyes than the motivations behind Dany's crucifixions. But it doesn't absolve the problematic morality of his use of torture over anyone else who has used torture.

So, we do agree. Good to have that out of the way. :cheers:

Good thing that I was not saying that then. I was anticpating this objection and already admiting that it is a valid one to make. Both Stannis and Dany are hypocrites, which is something I've been saying from the start.

When did Stannis eat people?

well at least Asha seems to have the impression that it was not exactly an isolated incidents. She mentions quite a couple of guilty looks, also from the higher-ranked members of Stannis host... Isn't it quite the happy coincidene that Stannis managed to catch the lowborn perpetrators and not the higher-ranked ones?

True, and those guilty faces are probably thinking, "Crappers, I had better stop eating dead people before I'm next."

The higher ranking individuals eat pretty good--even Asha, so they have no reason to eat the dead.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Seriously? "Impulsive?"

I'm not gonna defend the crucifixion but I'm not gonna pretend Dany did it on a whim, that she woke up one day and said "today's kind of slow, I guess I'll crucify some people, why not?" She did it to scare the First Families of Meereen, give them reason to pause before acting against her. Yes it was a stab in the dark and yes it was indefensible (why let THEM choose, they'll feed up the people who may have liked you!), but I can understand why she thought it was her best option at the time. In her position Stannis would probably have done something similar. A king does not last long if he has any tolerance for rebels and their conspiracies.

So in a way both Stannis and Dany killed people to solidify their own power. Stannis to appease the red god and his followers and buff up Melisandre's magical mojo, and Dany to potentially cripple the conspiracy against her at best and maybe erode their high-level support.

And so the innocent suffer.

This. I've been getting a bit caught up in the advocatus diaboli position and have probably gone a bit too far in defending Dany in this thread, so thanks for bringing back some perspective.